Archimago wrote: > Well, when it comes to SBGK, I notice that he tends to disappear once > one confronts him with request for details on his testing method and > what he bases his conclusions on. > > As for CA. Such an unfortunate state of affairs. I think in its early > days many of the topics were useful and reality-based. There were some > excellent articles by folks like Mitchco looking at room treatments, > speaker digital XO's and such as examples of the value of some articles. > Seems like an excellent example of how trying to turn it into a > financial venture and the need to court advertisers and cater to the > 'needs' of certain manufacturers leads to acceptance and ultimately the > 'shilling' of questionable products. I guess when you go visit the > manufacturers in S. Korea, France, etc. this kind of thing happens??? > > On another note... Notice the latest posting on AudioStream today? Hmmm, > a step in the right direction? Of course, I've been banned from posting > for some reason even though I don't think I was rude or terribly > argumentative! > > "No one in their right mind dismisses the importance of objective > attributes when it comes to the design and manufacturer of audio > components. And no one in their right mind would dismiss the importance > of measurements after-the-fact in determining if a given component is > performing up to spec." > > I certainly would have thanked him for starting to take a more balanced > view...
Archimago I believe that the developments at AudioStream kind of mirrored what happen over at Computer Audiophile in that AudioStream started off somewhat reality based but soon (a much faster turn around than CA) began to wave that audiophile flag loudly and proudly. But I can understand why both CA and AudioStream when down the audiophile rabbit hole - MONEY On a related note, why is that the vast majority of subjectivists only seem to respect subjective and sighted listening tests that yield those infamous "night and day" improvements/differences/what-have-yous and not the subjective and sighted listening tests that reach the conclusions that there is no difference? For example on this little forum that are many of us who hear absolutely no difference between well made and properly functioning USB cables, so why is that subjective observation dismissed but the ones that claim to hear a difference not only not dismissed but even revered. The main reason that I switched from the subjectivist camp over to the objectivist camp is that after awhile I could no longer hear any real or important difference between cables, speaker wires, power cords, electrical outlets, power conditions, etc. Sure I can hear differences between speakers and headphones but the difference between the sound of my Headroom amp with the standard DAC and power supply versus my Headroom amp with the upgraded power supply and DAC (yes I have two different Headroom DAC/amps) are not only NOT "night and day" but in fact may not just not be there at all. Now don't get me wrong in that the two amps could very well measure slightly different but those measurable differences just don't seem to translate into audible differences. Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: SBS on dedicated windows 7 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103842 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
